Guidance for Reviewers

The Journal of Hearing Science relies on the expertise and professional judgment of its reviewers to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. To support a fair, objective, and transparent peer review process, reviewers are expected to adhere to the ethical principles outlined below, which are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Conflict of Interest for Reviewers

The Journal of Hearing Science follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding conflicts of interest in peer review. Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that may affect their ability to provide an objective and independent assessment of a manuscript.

The Journal operates a double-anonymized peer review system in which reviewers do not know the identities of the authors. However, the content of a manuscript, its references, research area, or other contextual information may occasionally allow reviewers to identify an author or research group.

If reviewers become aware of any personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial relationship that could influence their assessment, they should decline the review invitation or notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

If a conflict of interest is identified after a review assignment has been accepted, reviewers should immediately inform the Editorial Office and suspend the review until further instructions are provided. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

Source: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

2. Reviewer Expertise

The Journal relies on the expertise and professional judgment of its reviewers to ensure the quality and scientific integrity of published research. Reviewers should accept invitations only for manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise and for which they can provide a competent, objective, and timely evaluation. If reviewers believe that they lack the necessary expertise to assess all or part of a manuscript, they should decline the invitation and notify the Editorial Office.

3. Confidentiality

As a journal committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to implementing the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Journal of Hearing Science requires reviewers to treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose manuscript content to any third party without the prior permission of the Editor.

Information obtained through the peer review process must not be used for personal advantage, research purposes, or the benefit of any individual or organization before the manuscript has been published. Reviewers are expected to respect the confidentiality of the review process at all times.

4. Identification of Ethical Concerns

The Journal expects reviewers to contribute to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record by alerting the Editorial Office to any ethical concerns identified during the review process. Concerns may include, but are not limited to:

• plagiarism
• self-plagiarism or redundant publication
• data manipulation
• data fabrication or falsification
• duplicate publication
• unethical research involving human participants or animals.

Reviewers should communicate any concerns confidentially to the Editorial Office – any concerns will be evaluated by the Editorial Office in accordance with the Journal's publication ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The Journal recognizes the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic and publishing workflows. However, to protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary files, review reports, or any manuscript-related content to publicly available AI tools or services.

Reviewers are expected to prepare their assessments independently, using their own scientific expertise, critical analysis, and professional judgment. Artificial intelligence tools must not be used as a substitute for the reviewer’s evaluation, interpretation of findings, or recommendation regarding the publication of a manuscript.